The Section of Archaeology staff preparing for the Kipona Festival on City Island in Harrisburg

Photo: PHMC/The State Museum of PA

About Us

The Section of Archaeology at The
State Museum of Pennsylvania curates the largest collection in the museum and
is responsible for multiple functions within the PHMC. Developing and maintaining exhibits in the
Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology is a primary function, but our role as the
state repository for cultural resource projects is substantial. Our office is responsible for curating approximately
8 million artifacts representing over 14,000 years of Pennsylvania’s
archaeological heritage. The curation and preservation of Native American and historic period artifacts and their associated
records from archaeological sites across the Commonwealth is an essential
function requiring collaboration with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)and
state, federal and private developers. Prior to construction, a review process
conducted by PHMC archaeologists will identify
the impact of water & sewer lines, highway expansion, bridge replacements
and private or commercial development receiving state or federal funding. A
variety of preservation methods are employed to mitigate the impact of these
projects on our cultural heritage. If an
archaeological site can’t be avoided during construction, then an archaeological
investigation is conducted. It is through this process that many significant
and unique objects of our archaeological heritage are recovered. Artifacts resulting from these projects
represent the bulk of our collection. These
significant collections are available for scholarly examination, and researchers
are encouraged to contact the Section of Archaeology for information about
using the collections.

Projectile
points from the Dutt collection (Chester County) which have been sorted into
different types based on form

Photo: PHMC/The State Museum of PA

Our role as Pennsylvania’s repository
for archaeological survey records and collections is part of the environmental
review process conducted by the SHPO; additionally, our facility curates
archaeological collections of significance from Pennsylvania that have been
donated by private collectors. The Section of Archaeology is also responsible
for developing and updating the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology exhibits
at The State Museum of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. These exhibits present the pre-history of
Pennsylvania from approximately 14,000 years ago through the historic period
with collections representing military and industrial era sites in
Pennsylvania.

Loans to non-profit organizations
are facilitated through the section and have provided opportunities for
communities to view the archaeological heritage of their community at the local
level. The PHMC has a renewable loan
policy that enables proper monitoring of loan agreements and artifacts. Local community awareness and appreciation
for the archaeological record are greatly enhanced by these displays.

An exhibit
of artifacts on loan to the Red Rose Transit Authority in Lancaster from The
State Museum’s archaeology collection

Photo: Red
Rose Transit Authority

Curation of these irreplaceable
objects is provided in a secure curation facility. A climate controlled environment
ensures the long term preservation of Pennsylvania’s archaeological heritage.
Humidity, temperature and sub-standard artifact housing pose threats to the
long term preservation of artifacts; often, the effects of poor storage conditions
are apparent only after irreversible damage has been done. It is the
responsibility of the curators to ensure collections and records are properly
housed so that they may be made available for future generations of researchers
and for the benefit of all.

Compact
storage units are used to make the most of the 34,278 cubic foot curation
facility

Photo:
PHMC/The State Museum of PA

We continue to make our
collections more accessible to researchers and to raise awareness of the
importance of archaeology in Pennsylvania. The staff is involved with public
outreach programs such as The Pennsylvania Farm Show, presentations at
professional conferences or community venues, research and publication.

Publications by the museum’s
archaeology staff include the recently released book, First Pennsylvanians: The Archaeology of Native Americans in
Pennsylvania by Kurt Carr and Roger Moeller, available now from the PA
Heritage Foundation bookstore and articles on Shenks Ferry culture in PA Archaeologist and The Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology
by Jeffrey Graybill and PHMC archaeologist Jim Herbstritt, available from the Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology and the Middle
Atlantic Archaeological Conference. Listed below are the articles on Shenks
Ferry culture and their corresponding journals.

Graybill, Jeffrey
R. and James T. Herbstritt

2013 Shenks Ferry Radiocarbon Dates, The Quarry Site (36La1100), and
Village Site Ecology. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 83(2):16-28

In addition to roles with
exhibits and the SHPO, our staff may receive multiple inquiries from
researchers, educators or the general public during a single week. The
archaeology department does its best to answer questions in a timely manner. If
we are not able to assist with an inquiry, the staff will refer the question to
an individual whom we think may be better able to assist.

Frequently, questions concern
artifact identification. Our staff is most capable of answering questions about
artifacts found in Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic region. At minimum, a good
quality photograph with a scale should be included in the inquiry, but
remember, identification via photograph is not always possible. If scheduling
allows, our staff is willing to identify artifacts in person at our offices in
downtown Harrisburg.

A copper
adze that was brought to the archaeology staff for identification- there are no
other items like this in our collections, making it an especially intriguing
artifact.

Photo:
PHMC/The State Museum of PA

Other common questions come from individuals
wishing to use the archaeology collections for research. Many journal articles,
master’s theses, and Ph.D. dissertations have been produced from research
conducted using the State Museum of Pennsylvania’s historic and prehistoric archaeology
collections. Listed below are just a few
of the many publications.

Esarey, Duane

2013
Another Kind of Beads: A Forgotten Industry of the North American Colonial
Period. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Published in American Archaeology, Vol.18,
No.1 spring 2014

Lauria,
Lisa

2004
Mythical Giants of the Chesapeake: An Evaluation of the Archaeological
Construction of “Susquehannock”. Journal
of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 20:21-28

Mitchell, Seth

2011
Understanding the occupational history of the Monongahela Johnston Village Site
Through Total Artifact Design. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania.

Occasionally, our staff will
receive a request for public outreach. In October of this year, a request of
this nature sent two staff members to the Upper Adams Middle School in
Biglerville, PA to speak to 7th grade students studying ancient history. For
occasions such as these, our staff uses a display board, a photographic
slideshow and an assortment of prehistoric and historic artifacts to provide
students with an overview of what it means to be an archaeologist and why
archaeology matters. These experiences can be extremely rewarding for both the
students and the staff. Public outreach plays an important role in meeting the
educational goals of the museum.

Archaeology
Curators Liz Wagner and Melanie Mayhew display artifacts for students of
ancient history

Photo:
Brenda Robinson

In addition to special requests for public outreach, archaeologists at
the state museum participate in special programming at The State Museum. During
the summer of 2015, staff members were on hand every Thursday afternoon in the
Nature Lab on the third floor of the State Museum to offer insight and answer questions
on a broad range of archaeology subjects including prehistoric tool making,
clay pottery and the ongoing research of prehistoric stone axes, among other
topics.

These are just a few of the many
functions served by the archaeology curators at the State Museum of
Pennsylvania.

Friday, December 18, 2015

To continue our discussion about
Fort Hunter data collection, processing and usage we will take a look at one of
the most important factors in understanding and preserving an archaeological
site. This factor, as is commonly stated in the real estate industry is,
“location, location, location”. In order for archaeologists to understand the
landscape of an archaeological site we must know where everything is in
location to one another both horizontally and vertically. The reason it is so
important to record the location of artifacts, features and structures, is that
once they are removed from the ground there is no way put them back in their
exact place again. In addition, maps depicting the exact location of different
types of artifacts are necessary to identify artifact patterning and activity
areas. The excavation methods employed by trained archaeologists insure that
the entire archaeological record of a site is properly recorded during excavation
as archaeology is a destructive science.

In order to preserve this
locational information, sites such as Fort Hunter, are excavated based on a
grid set from our datum (a known fixed point). This allows archaeologists to go
back to a site, whether it is from year to year or twenty years from now, and
re-establish the grid. With good documentation and a re-established grid,
archaeologists can determine what areas had been previously excavated. The grid
also provides the horizontal locational information of artifacts and features
that have been removed from that area. At Fort Hunter our grid is in 5 by 5 foot
square increments, which is termed as a unit. We name our units using the
northing and easting (for example N90E10) of the southwest corner of a square. This
designation allows us to easily reference that unit and keep track of the
artifacts or features.

Overview of Fort Hunter excavations with stakes and string
line indicating the grid, Fort Hunter 2007

Once a grid is established, we
begin excavating units in levels in either arbitrary levels of a predetermined
measurement (for example 3 inches or 5 centimeters etc.) or based on soil
layers, which are indicated by changes in soil color and texture. The layers
are often given an alpha designation based on the soil type. Identifying the
same types of soil throughout the grid allows us to see how the soil layers
slope and change over the landscape. These anomalies can indicate different
geologic/climatic processes as well as point to the activities of people on the
landscape. Within these natural layers, we then excavate in arbitrary levels. These
levels and layers are measured below the set datum elevation, which provides
the vertical location information of the artifacts found within that level.

As mentioned in our last blog, “…unique
catalog numbers are assigned to each provenience.” The provenience mentioned
here is the locational identity of the artifacts based on the horizontal and
vertical measurements discussed above. It is with the locational information
and the well-developed catalog that we are able to know how the artifacts and
features are related to one another.

Now that we have explained how we
use the grid, we can look at how we layout the grid, take measurements and how
we manipulate the data in the lab. The basic idea of establishing a grid is to
create accurate 90 degree angle squares and in order to do this archaeologists
use a transit, tape measures and some basic geometry. A transit is an instrument
that sights straight lines and different angles. The transit is also used with
a stadia rod to measure the depth of a level.

Staff member using transit, just beginning to set up grid,
Fort Hunter 2010

Today we use a newer technology
called a total station. A total station is an electronic transit which can also
sight straight lines and angles as well as use a laser and prism to collect
precise horizontal and vertical measurements of a point on our grid. Using the
Top Con Data Collector (handheld attachment to the total station), we are able
to easily store and look up point information while in the field and also
download and convert the data into a spreadsheet format.

Staff member using Top Con total station, Fort Hunter 2014

Staff member holding prism to take measurements using total
station, Fort Hunter 2014

Example of collected data in spreadsheet format

With the data collected, we are
able to then create useful maps, which allow us to analyze the relationship
between features, structures and artifacts. It is also possible to use unit and
artifact data to create distribution maps. Common programs used to create such
maps include Golden Software’s Surfer and Autodesk’s AutoCAD.

Example of a feature map, showing relationship of several
different features

Example of an artifact distribution map

Example of a profile map

With today’s technology, and the
detailed information we collect, there are many different mapping options
including those above as well as the ability of creating 3-D images. Knowing
the relationship of artifacts and features on the landscape provides the
foundation that archaeologists use to develop explanations for how past humans
were living on and using the landscape. Creating these maps provides a useful
visual comparison of how features, artifacts and structures are placed on the
landscape. Finally, maps also provide a great way to interpret an
archaeological site and how we present different ideas of the past to others.

We wanted to take a moment to
remember a longtime volunteer, Sheila Dunn. Sheila was a dedicated volunteer
who put a lot of time and effort into collecting data and creating Fort Hunter
maps for us. Using her training and past experience in watershed surveys she
was always ready and willing to help out in any way and put in great effort to
create some of our first maps of the Fort Hunter excavations. Thank you,
Sheila.

Sheila Dunn

We hope to see you all in the new
year at the 100th anniversary of the Pennsylvania Farm Show running
from January 9-January 16, 2016. Look for us in a new location this year
directly off of the Maclay Street entrance near the children’s carousel. From
all of us in the Section of Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania -
Have a happy and safe holiday!

Friday, December 4, 2015

Our last blog about Fort Hunter highlighted the ongoing archival
research staff archaeologists’ conduct to inform how we interpret the results
of each year’s excavation which aids in directing our plans for future
investigations. Over the next few
postings we are going to continue to discuss what happens with Fort Hunter
artifacts and excavation documents between field seasons.

For every day of investigation at a well-defined archaeological
site, roughly seven days are required to fully process and conserve the
artifacts and archive the associated field documentation. This is a general
rule of thumb that many professional archaeologist use to estimate time in
preparing budgets for archaeological investigations. The laboratory time needed
varies to a degree depending on quantities and types of artifacts, the extent
of field records, and the numbers of people working with the collection, but on
average the ratio of 1:7—length of field season to laboratory processing time—holds
true.

Artifacts laid out on trays to clean and label,
Fort Hunter 2015

The 2015 Fort Hunter field season was conducted for a span
of 25 days, with over 12,000 artifacts recovered, 133 proveniences documented
(excavation unit levels dug and subsurface features identified, etc.), and 470
digital photographs taken. Based on the ratio of 1:7, the estimated time for a
single person to fully process the collection would be around 175 days or about
seven months working five days a week. This estimate projects an April
completion date of the following year to fully inventory, curate and archive
collected artifacts and documents for any given fall season. Luckily we have
two staff members in the archaeology lab and a rotation of several dedicated
volunteers who greatly assist with the cleaning and labeling of artifacts. Working together we are able to generally
complete the lab processing of Fort Hunter annual collections by early January,
while juggling other projects and responsibilities.

As with any collection that is processed in the lab, the
initial steps are to organize and record the provenience information from field
bags through the preparation of a digital inventory; and stabilize the
artifacts through washing, dry brushing or other conservation techniques as
needed.

Excerpt from 2015 Bag Inventory

The bag inventory is then used to assign unique catalog numbers
to all proveniences represented in the artifact collection. Cleaned artifacts
that are at least a square inch in diameter and are material types that can be
safely treated with a reversible acryloid basecoat (e.g. - most historic and
prehistoric ceramics; prehistoric stone tools; historic glass and brick) are
labeled with their site number— a trinomial abbreviation developed by the
Smithsonian which includes the state, county, and site information—and their
designated catalog number in archival ink. Labels are then sealed with a clear
topcoat to ensure longevity for long-term curation.

Fort Hunter’s site number is (36Da159). When ordered
alphabetically, Pennsylvania falls 36th within the 50 States; Da is
the abbreviation for Dauphin County; and Fort Hunter is the 159th
site recorded in the Commonwealth’s archaeological site survey file in this
county. (Click the provided link for more information about the Pennsylvania
Archaeological site survey (PASS) for Dauphin County.)

It may seem excessive to label the copious amounts of bottle
glass, brick and other materials that are recovered from Fort Hunter every
year, but it is well worth the time investment. The most valuable aspect of
each artifact recovered is where it was located in relation to other artifacts
and features on the site. This is often referred to as an artifact’s context,
and is what ultimately allows archaeologist to interpret past human behaviors.
Labeling artifacts with this coding system allows us to quickly know where they
were recovered from, and is a safe guard against losing this information when
objects are frequently pulled out of storage for further analysis.

Excerpt of Final Artifact Inventory, Fort Hunter
2014

The final steps in the artifact curation process are to add
a description of each artifact or group of like artifacts into the digital
inventory by catalog number, and bag and box them carefully to insure their preservation
for long-term curation. This is all done in a systematic manner so that any
given artifact can be easily accessed and utilized by future researchers.
Maintaining a complete inventory and well organized collection for Fort Hunter
year to year is particularly important because we continue to learn new
information with each field season. Our interpretations continue to expand and
refine as we delve further into the historic record through archival research
and as our field investigations contribute further insights into material
culture practices that both validate the existing historic record and broaden
its scope of perspective.

Staff Member pulling artifacts from collections
storage to compare findings from a previous Fort Hunter investigation year

The State Museum’s Section of Archaeology is the principal repository
for archaeological collections in Pennsylvania and maintains over 7 million
artifacts and associated documents. Fort Hunter field documentation and digital
photographs are also archived in the Section’s county files and on a secure
server with backup contact sheets and logs. These documents are constantly
referenced to draft reports and articles; to create maps; to relay information
in public and professional forums through presentations, exhibits, blog
postings and other media outlets; and to plan further investigations. Each
piece, from the artifacts recovered to field records and photographic
documentation, fits together to reconstruct the story of Fort Hunter’s past. When
the field work is done, we rely on sound conservation practices and accurate
digital records to preserve access to Pennsylvania’s rich archaeological record
for generations to come.

Staff Member searching county files for project documents

Our next blog will delve deeper into an important aspect of
reconstructing and preserving archaeological contexts at Fort Hunter through
digital mapping.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Although the subject of Fort
Hunter has been covered a number of times in the TWIPA blog, research conducted
over the past year indicates that there was more going on in the area of Fort
Hunter than was previously known. Prior to becoming the French and Indian War
post of Fort Hunter, this area was known as “Chambers’ Mill” or “Chambers at
Paxtang”, named for its early occupants, brothers Robert, Joseph, James, and
Benjamin Chambers. Eventually, the
brothers moved across the Susquehanna River except Joseph who operated a grist
mill as well as possibly a gunsmith/blacksmith shop on the property.

1755 Evans Map Showing the Location of
Chambers’ Mill North of the Kittatinny Mountain

Chambers’ Mill appears to have
become a widely-known location utilized as a gathering place starting soon
after the Chambers’ initial settlement. In 1744, the murder of several white
men, including the trader John Armstrong, by the Indians occasioned a meeting of
John Harris and other locals “at the House of Joseph Chambers in Paxton” who “there
Consulted to go to Samokin [Shamokin], To Consult with the Delaware King &
Secalima [Shikellamy] & their Council”.

Again in 1744, a council for
the Lancaster Treaty brought a large number of the Six Nations natives to the
area to consult with the governments of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.
Conrad Weiser met these Indians and brought them through Paxtang on their way
to Lancaster City. On June 16th, 19th, and 20th
he purchased supplies at Chambers’ and from Simon Girty, Sr., an unlicensed
trader who is known to have traded at Chamber’s Mill. Weiser’s journal
indicated that he purchased “three hundredweight of flour from Joseph Chambers
and five Shillings worth of Bread and Milk of Simon girty” as well as a steer,
rum, and tobacco to feed and entertain the Indians.

In the summer of 1747, Weiser,
passing through the area on his way north, “found Shickelimy at the house of
Joseph Chambers, in Paxton, with two of his sons and a man of note from the
Canickquon Country.” Weiser “stayed two days and two nights at Joseph Chambers
with the said Indians, discoursed with them, and I entertained in the best
manner I could”. Other noted visitors to
Chambers’ Mill in the 1740s included the Indian missionaries David Brainerd,
Anton Schmidt, and Bishop John Christopher Frederick Cammerhoff.

Other than foodstuffs, alcohol,
and tobacco, it is unclear what was being traded at Chambers’ Mill but it is
likely that Joseph and his son James were also conducting trade. Following
James’ death in 1763, an inventory of his belongings listed tomahawks, brass
kettles, cloth and thread, matchcoats, Indian shirts, handkerchiefs, “2 Silver
Hair plates” and “2400 Black Wompum” indicating the likelihood that he was
engaging in trading activities with the natives. In 1764, a letter written from
Fort Hunter to James Burd references Dennis McCormick’s desire to “dispose of
all ye Hyds” that McCormick has at the fort. This indicates that
animal skins were possibly being traded for goods here.

A number of other trade
locations were available in the vicinity of Chambers during this period. John
Harris at Harris’ Ferry (later Harrisburg) and John Carson were located just to
the south, while the Armstrong’s and Thomas McKee had trade posts to the north
along the river. Whether it was to trade, to bring grain to the mill, to attend
a council, or to visit the smithy for gun repairs, it is clear that something
was drawing the natives to visit Chambers’ Mill. On his 1748 trip to Shamokin,
Bishop Cammerhoff notes that he and his companion overtook two Indians in the
woods “who lived fifty miles above Shamokin” who were “returning from Chamber’s
Mill”, indicating the distances that some went to get to the mill location.

It is likely that Samuel Hunter,
for whom the fort was known, was also trading with Indians at the property. A
trade license was issued to Hunter for the year 1766 that gave him “Licence to
trade with the Nations or Tribes of Indians, with whom his Majefty is
connected, and who live under his protection…” A licensed trader was required
to give bond of £100 at
a quarter session of county court, allowing him to set up a legal trade at
government forts or posts. Although 1766 was the only year a license is known
to exist for Hunter it is possible he was trading with Indians at Fort Hunter
during the war.

1766 Trade License for Samuel Hunter (PHMC
Archives)

Although no definitive account
of the types of goods being traded at Chambers’ Mill has yet been discovered, a
number of artifacts recovered from the site indicate the possibility of a link
to native visitations. Eighteenth century glass trade beads and cut scrap
brass, prized by the Indians for ornamentation, have been found during
excavations. In 2015, four glass trade beads were recovered from newly-opened
test units on the east side of the back porch, as were fragments of brass and
brass ornaments.

Gun parts recovered from the
site could be associated with military activities at the fort but may also reflect
pre-war use of the smithy and could represent native weapons brought in for
repair. This could be one reason that Indians were traveling long distances to
visit the site, as the Moravian smithy at Fort Augusta was not constructed
until the winter of 1747-48. Other items that have been found at the Fort
Hunter excavations, such as knives, combs, scissors, buttons, straight pins,
and mirrors could represent trade goods as easily as objects associated with
the military occupation or even household goods of the Chambers or Hunter
families.

More documentary research and
comparison of the collection will need to be undertaken in order to detail the
nature of the objects recovered from Fort Hunter. A more careful inspection of
the entire collection may reveal that objects thought to have been associated
with the fort occupation are possibly instead related to trade activities. Through
such work it is hoped that a better understanding of the early trade and Indian
relations at this site will emerge.

References:

Cammerhoff, Bishop John Christopher
Frederick and John W. Jordan 1905“Bishop
J.C.F. Cammerhoff’s Narrative of a Journey to Shamokin, Penna., in the Winter
of 1748”. The Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 160-179.

Evans, Lewis

1755 A General Map of the Middle British Colonies
in America. Evans: London.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Parking Information for the Workshops
in Archaeology

Saturday, Nov. 14th, 2015

Due to the Grand Review procession through downtown
Harrisburg on November 14th in observation of Veterans Day and the
150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War, the parking situation
for our Workshops in Archaeology has changed.

Parking will be available in two locations;
both are approximately 5 blocks from the State Museum of Pennsylvania:

Friday, November 6, 2015

Much of what we know about Native
American plant husbandry is the result of many years of specialized
investigation through the archaeological recovery process of separating
carbonized debris from pit soil via water immersion. This process is called
flotation the principal method used by archaeologists and paleo-ethnobotanists
to recover plant parts, especially seeds and other small fragile remains from
archaeological contexts. Through flotation, specimens are recovered, identified
and studied to better understand the subsistence behaviors of the people who
consumed them. Additionally, starch and pollen grains and phytoliths are minute
residues associated with prehistoric diet. Thus, through a careful detailed
study of these plant related components, hidden information is revealed
relating to human diet. On a regional,
level this research has broad implications that have the potential to greatly
enhance our understanding of cultural adaptations and plant use/consumption of
prehistoric native groups who once occupied the Pennsylvania landscape.

various
starch grains from archaeological sites

At first blush growing crops from
weeds may seem a weird concept but cultures around the world have been doing
just that for thousands of years. Take for example the food patterns of early
Meso-American societies where various strains of grass, by way of eco-human
modification and natural selection developed into the primitive form of maize
called tseosinte. Over time this crop food, became the flint and dent varieties
of maize. Along with beans and other Mesoamerican derived plant foods likely spread
into the Mississippi Valley and on to other parts of North America at an early
period where they became valuable food products in the Native American and
Euro-American diet.

squash
phytoliths

Gourds were grown in the central
Mississippi valley around 4500 years ago and gourd rinds dating approximately
to this period have been recovered from archaeological contexts in the central
Susquehanna valley at the Memorial Park Site. Certain weed seeds carefully
selected for their robustness and nutritional qualities were replanted setting
the stages for incipient Eastern North American horticulture. Though
archaeologically unknown or rarely identified for much of Pennsylvania other
weed crops were Amaranthus a.k.a.
pigweed ,Chenopodium a.k.a.
goosefoot, Iva a.k.a. marshelder and Helianthus a.k.a. sun flower among
others.

multiple
pollen grains imaged under SEM scope

Horticulture or garden farming
played a significant role in the sustainment of a dependable food base. Climate
fluctuations occurring at certain periods in human prehistory/history, caused
by uncontrollable rises and declines in solar activity, volcanic eruptions and
trade wind temperatures, bore directly on ocean current patterns. Some or all
of these factors were contributory to the Little Ice Age and the Neo-boreal
climatic period between 1350-1850 AD. Their lasting effects were felt in many
parts of the world until the early 19th century when conditions again
improved.

Until the arrival of domesticates with
modifications in the environment human plant food consumption likely did not
change much though some plant foods were only available seasonally. Foods such
as berries and a wide range of nuts only ripened during certain times of the
year (i.e. the fruiting season of summer and the nutting season of late autumn).
In their absence edible parts of soft stemmed plants that emerged in early
spring were processed and eaten along with roots and tubers from mud banks and
wetlands. The latter of which were accessible over much of the year. Some of
these plant products thus harvested were eaten directly or stored for later
consumption added variety to the daily menu of native people.

The appearance of maize (circa 800
AD) and beans (circa 1300 AD) on Pennsylvania’s prehistoric landscape significantly
contributed to changes in Native American demographic patterns. Small
habitation sites grew into large fortified settlements supporting many people.
Surrounding many of these settlements were extensive agricultural fields where
corn, beans and pumpkins were grown. For much of Pennsylvania this subsistence strategy
lasted until the system collapsed and many groups were dispersed in the mid-17th
century when foreign diseases arrived and Europeans focused their economic
pursuits on land acquisition and the extraction of native resources. By the
early 17th century elements of the native diet were adopted by
European immigrants and their presence can still be seen on the modern day
dinner plate.

This has been a brief introduction on the use
of plant foods in the Keystone State from “weed seeds to garden seeds”. The 2015
Annual Workshops in Archaeology Program is only a week away. This year’s theme
is a topic of wide interest to many Pennsylvanians beyond the archaeo-botanical
community. Experts with special fields of interest will be presenting and you
can view the program by clicking on the program banner to the right at the top of this post. We hope
to see you at the workshops on November 14th.

Friday, October 23, 2015

With this year’s field season at Fort Hunter Mansion and
Park behind us, we continue our look back at archaeological projects conducted
by The State Museum of Pennsylvania over the course of the last half century. This
series is intended to dove-tail with the broader celebration of the 50th
anniversary of the construction of the William Penn Memorial Museum building in
Harrisburg, which houses The State Museum of Pennsylvania and the executive
offices of its parent state agency, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission.

excavating a post mold feature at Ephrata Cloister (36La981)

A number of posts in this series previously detailed the
excavation of stratified prehistoric sites in advance of large, federally
funded or permitted development projects, such as Sheep Rock shelter (36Hu1)
for the Raystown Reservoir (Army Corps), and 36Da50 in anticipation of the
construction of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor (FERC). This week, the
focus will be on the decade long historical archaeology project that took place
at Ephrata Cloister, an 18th century religious commune in Lancaster
County, now a popular historic site that has been owned by the Commonwealth
since 1941.

WPA poster for Ephrata Cloister

The formation of the Ephrata Cloister community was the
direct result of a founding policy of William Penn’s nascent colony, that of
religious tolerance. Nowhere else in colonial America were the conditions such
that a social experiment like that of the Cloister was possible, thanks to Penn.
Political and religious upheaval, and the accompanying economic hardships faced
by marginalized groups throughout Europe in the late 17th century,
spurred many to seek a new beginning across the Atlantic. Such was the case
with Conrad Beissel, a German immigrant who would come to settle in Lancaster
County around 1730 seeking a more meaningful spirituality through solitude and
piety.

The charismatic Beissel soon found himself the leader of a
small, but industrious group of like-minded people that would comprise the
Cloister community. While spiritual purity was the primary focus of the
cloister’s celibate brothers and sisters, some of the activities they engaged
in include agriculture, print making, fraktur art, and among other industries,
the construction of large dormitories and prayer houses, some of which survive
today and have become icons of this National Historic Landmark.

at left, sisters' dormitory (1743) and right, prayer house (1741)

In the late 1980s site administrators expressed concern
that adequate measures had not been implemented to protect the massive wooden
structures, some of them at this point approaching 250 years old, from the threat
of destruction by fire. Steve Warfel, then Senior Curator of the Section of
Archaeology at The State Museum of PA, was contracted to perform an
archaeological survey of the proposed fire suppression line across the property
in an effort to identify any significant subsurface features relating to the
site’s early religious commune activities.

large cellar on Mt. Zion, excavated in 2001

From that initial
scope of work would emerge an annual historical archaeology field school, conducted
in the months of June and July, which instructed dozens of college students in
the methods of excavation, recordation and artifact identification. Over the
course of eleven seasons, hundreds of thousands of artifacts were recovered, and
several no longer extant buildings were relocated on the landscape, enhancing
and enriching the story of the Cloister (including its time as a hospital
during the American Revolution), and sometimes challenging long held
assumptions about the behavior of its inhabitants.

reconstructed storage crocks and table wares from the 1995 field season

top row, left to right: medicine vial fragment, english gun flint, two pieces of lead printers type

middle row: musket balls, french and english flint fragments

bottom row: medicine vial fragments

In an important final step after each season, Warfel published
his findings in accessible booklets (still available at the Cloister gift shop)
detailing the remains of structures discovered and their associated artifacts,
in order share insights gathered with parties interested in this special piece
of colonial American history.

This week’s post serves as a mere introduction to the Cloister and a number of interesting facets about its members and their
interactions with each other and with non-members locally and regionally. Outside
of Warfel’s archaeological booklet series, numerous books have been written
about Ephrata, If your curiosity has been piqued, please refer to the suggested
reading list below to dig a little deeper.

Bach, Jeff. Voices of the turtledoves: the sacred world of Ephrata. Penn State University Press, 2003

Friday, October 9, 2015

At the beginning of the 2015 field
season, we had 3 goals for the Fort Hunter excavation: investigate the icehouse
to verify its function; to clean up and clarify the foundation east of the icehouse
believed to be the octagon shaped smoke house; and to open new excavation units
by the mansion to seek out any evidence of the block house beyond the foot
print of the mansion.

Screening with a little help from
our friends

As usual, our investigation plans for
this year were greater than our staff and loyal volunteers could handle
although we made a valiant try. Our screens were humming, producing over 12,000
artifacts but the opening of new units or features was not as extensive as we had
planned. In the block east of the milk house (see below), we were able to
expose the complete foundation of the building we think is the octagon
shaped smoke house referenced in an 1828 account, unfortunately most of the
other features in this excavation block were not tested. We discovered that the
south and east walls of the stone foundation were in much better condition than
the north wall which appeared to have
been disturbed or “robbed”.

The
octagon smoke house with a circular foundation and the attached structure
containing the stove to introduce the smoke.

We
troweled around Feature 110, situated in the middle of the circular foundation
and found a charcoal/organic stain covered with a mix of topsoil and
subsoil (“A” & “B” horizons). It appears that the dark stain was in the
bottom of a hole and covered with fill. The smoke for this octagon shaped smoke
house was reportedly introduced from a stove outside of the building. This
charcoal stain may be the remains of a square shaped smoke house that preceded
the octagon in which the smoke was generated from inside. A partial excavation
of this feature last year produced a few possible 18th century
artifacts and will require careful study next year.

West
side of milk house illustrating the exposed foundation

Our investigation of the structure
formally known as the “icehouse” and now labeled as the milk house was
significantly more rewarding. Our first indication that it was not an icehouse
came early in the season while excavating the deeply stratified prehistoric
horizons west of this structure. These investigations revealed that the
foundation was less than six feet deep which did not agree with the historic account
that describes the icehouse as over 15 feet deep.

Jim
Herbstritt working inside the milk house

Following
the removal of the wooden floor boards and exposing a tightly paved brick floor,
followed by auguring beneath the brick, it turns out the brick was laid on a
thin disturbed soil layer followed by the natural soil profile of Pleistocene
sands and cobbles. In addition, a closer look at a recessed hole in the west
wall revealed that it had been patched from the outside with cement – probably
placed there when the building was upgraded in the 1970’s.

Auguring
inside the milk house

In our re-analysis of the building’s function,
it’s placement over the edge of the well foundation is significant. It is
hypothesized that water was pumped from the well, through the hole in the west wall
and into wooden containers that held cans of milk, cider or other liquids to be
cooled. These were periodically emptied and the running water drained out the
back of the building.

The
interior drain in the milk house

Finally, we removed several rows of
brick from the floor along the west wall of the milk house and exposed the
interior builder’s trench and a disturbance in the southwest corner. The well
is situated just outside this corner and the excavation of this disturbance may
date the well, date the milk house and elucidate the functional relationship
between these two structures. Dating these structures is extremely important
for reconstructing the arrangement of buildings and their functions during the early
McAllister occupation. Next year, we will probably excavate the entire
builder’s trench and, if necessary, the disturbed soil under the brick floor to recover a datable assemblage of artifacts. Currently, we only have an
1828 reference to the well, milk house and octagon shaped smoke house. However,
we believe the well is the oldest of these structures and probably was one of
the first structures built by McAllister or possibly Mr. Hunter at an even earlier date.

The
drain on the exterior of the north wall

Mary
Clyne developing a scale drawing of the west wall

Now that the milk house has been
completely exposed on the interior and the bottom of the exterior exposed on
two sides, our intern from Elizabethtown College, Mary Clyne, is completing
scale drawings of the walls and floor. These will be digitalized to accurately
document the structure and hopefully clarify how it functioned.

Mary
Clyne working inside the milk house

Porch Trench

The Excavation along the porch brought us back to the 18th century occupation and the investigation of frontier life in Pennsylvania. Four (5x5 ft.) units were placed along the brick
porch of the McAllister mansion. The first soil layer was the typical 19th
and 20th century “A” horizon that we identify as Strat 1 and is
found across the site in this area of the yard. Below this soil, a lighter
brown “A” horizon was uncovered that we have labeled Strat 2. These two soil
strata were identified during our first season at Fort Hunter and they are
found south of the milk house and for the most part are absent in the
excavation units east and west of the milk house. Strat 2 lies directly above
the “B” horizon that is designated Strat 3. Although 19th century and
non-diagnostic artifacts such as rusted metal, nails and bone dominated the
collection, more 18th century artifacts were recovered from these
units than all 15 units opened west of the milk house. The list includes
gunflints of French and English flint, musket balls, tin-glazed earthenware,
brass scrap and most interestingly, several early 18th century glass
trade beads. There are references in the historic record that Mr. Hunter was
trading with the Indians and these artifacts hwlp support the historic account.

We were unable to complete the porch
trench and did not reach the “B” horizon subsoil although a transitional “A”/”B”
zone was exposed. Most of Strat 2 is deeper in the porch trench than elsewhere and
it may represent a large depression or hole in the 18th century
surface. Next year, we will continue in this unit and expand it to the north
and east.

Both historic and prehistoric
archaeology tests hypotheses and explanations of past cultural behavior. In
addition, historic archaeology is a process for testing and verifying the
historic record. To a degree, it is a more objective examination of history
than documents alone. This season, we were able to correct the historic record
and develop a more accurate description of the McAllister functional
arrangement of buildings. As usual, we resolved some issues but discovered new
ones.

To summarize, next year we will continue
working inside the milk house to date this structure and better understand its
relationship to the well. We will expand our excavation along the porch as this area contains a high density of 18th century artifacts that may relate to
the fort site or either the Hunter or McAllister occupations. We will also further
define the features around the smoke house.

We are starting to get a better picture
of the cultural landscape of Fort Hunter. Mr. Hunter and Mr. McAllister were true
entrepreneur and we are beginning to uncover the early projects that made them
and their families successful.

Finally, our other goal at Fort Hunter
is to show the public how field archaeology is conducted. Towards that end we
interacted with over 2700 visitors this season.

One Tank Trip

WFMZ-TV 69 from Reading, Pennsylvania visited The State Museum of Pennsylvania on February 8th, 2017. Karin Mallett prepared a feature piece on great places to visit that are one tank of gas from Reading and our gallery was the focus of this visit. Karin interviewed Kurt Carr, Senior Curator and Janet Johnson in the gallery and provide a nice overview of the spectacular exhibits. Please click on the link below and enjoy this glimpse of the museum during this One Tank Trip!
One Tank Trip: Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology

Followers

Disclaimer:

The views contained within do not necessarily reflect those of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) as a whole, nor the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Comments and discussion are encouraged. However, posts that are deemed inappropriate or offensive will be removed. Users will not be notified when content is removed.